St Marys looks like the team to beat. Playing thier best hockey and seem to play with real purpose ( no respect ) attitute.They maybe coming out of easy backet but should get to Woburn in semis and take care of first real threat.

It's Chelmsford that is using a waiver and has a JV team. Framingham has 12 skaters, 1 goalie this year. JV is learn to skate/play. No waiver. They're battling through the best they can and hoping that the talent in the pipeline coming up stays and doesn't go prep. They've already lost 3 to preps and those 3 would make a huge difference to this team.Posted by Hockeymomsrule

Hi, just stumbled across this message board and had to respond regarding Chelmsford's use of middle schoolers. Chelmsford has a full varsity squad made up of high school girls. After the team was set, it left 5 girls of varying skills that still wanted to play, but had no team.

The decision was made to call up middle schoolers to fill out a JV roster, enabling those high school girls that did not make varsity to continue playing at the JV level. NO middle schoolers play on the varsity team/no waiver in place to do so either. Some of these 8th graders have the skills to skate at the Varsity level, but luckily, Chelmsford has enough high school age players and did not have to apply for a waiver.

Full disclosure, I am the father of one of the 8th grade JV players, just wanted to clear up any misconception regarding Chelmsford's use of middle schoolers.

St Marys looks like the team to beat. Playing thier best hockey and seem to play with real purpose ( no respect ) attitute.They maybe coming out of easy backet but should get to Woburn in semis and take care of first real threat.Posted by hockeydad2012

Hi HD, The only way St Mary's could face Woburn in the tournament is if they both make it to the Garden in the finals.

St. Mary's bracket may seem easy, but this is playoff hockey, it only takes one mistake and you are out. Also don't forget that they would need to get by the winner of the Hingham/Weymouth/Chelmsford/Westford bracket IF they win. I personally think Hingham will be in the semis vs St. Mary's but I am biased.

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : Hi HD, The only way St Mary's could face Woburn in the tournament is if they both make it to the Garden in the finals. St. Mary's bracket may seem easy, but this is playoff hockey, it only takes one mistake and you are out. Also don't forget that they would need to get by the winner of the Hingham/Weymouth/Chelmsford/Westford bracket IF they win. I personally think Hingham will be in the semis vs St. Mary's but I am biased.Posted by ghockeyfan

You biased!! I would have never believed it !! Hope all is well. Everything good here

Interesting first round games - Medway-Ashland-Millis-Holliston vs Winthrop-Lynn-Revere-Saugus. Winthrop/Lynn/Revere/Saugus is led by two 7th grade goalies, three 8th grade forwards and three 8th grade defensemen. Eight towns, 8 non-high school players. Can somebody explain to me how this is D1 high school hockey? .......I didn't think soPosted by four-green-fields

get over it. Winthrop has 4 towns...soon to be 2. SM has only 3 kids from Lynn. so when you crap on a team that is a co-op don;t forget the king of co-ops...SMH-Peabody-Swampscott-Medford-West Newbury-Lynn-Wakefield-Danvers-Malden.

and I still believe that any team should be able to have kids from anywhere playing...s long as they are good enough...even 11 yr old 6th graders.

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : get over it. Winthrop has 4 towns...soon to be 2. SM has only 3 kids from Lynn. so when you crap on a team that is a co-op don;t forget the king of co-ops...SMH-Peabody-Swampscott-Medford-West Newbury-Lynn-Wakefield-Danvers-Malden. and I still believe that any team should be able to have kids from anywhere playing...s long as they are good enough...even 11 yr old 6th graders.Posted by sleeper3

I have to say I agree more with the original poster on this one. My opinion (your entitled to yours) is that you should get one exemption or the other not both. If you want to co-op - 9th grade to 12th grade. If you want middle school players keep it in your school district. In addition there should be a time limit on the co-ops just to let you build the program, not to keep it forever. Same with the Middle School waiver, once your program gets in a few years.

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : I have to say I agree more with the original poster on this one. My opinion (your entitled to yours) is that you should get one exemption or the other not both. If you want to co-op - 9th grade to 12th grade. If you want middle school players keep it in your school district. In addition there should be a time limit on the co-ops just to let you build the program, not to keep it forever. Same with the Middle School waiver, once your program gets in a few years. Posted by shoot2score

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : get over it. Winthrop has 4 towns...soon to be 2. SM has only 3 kids from Lynn. so when you crap on a team that is a co-op don;t forget the king of co-ops...SMH-Peabody-Swampscott-Medford-West Newbury-Lynn-Wakefield-Danvers-Malden. and I still believe that any team should be able to have kids from anywhere playing...s long as they are good enough...even 11 yr old 6th graders.Posted by sleeper3

4 towns plus a parent with a laser pointer. If this story is true, which it sounds like it is as the parent was removed from the game, Winthrop should be DQ'd. Absolute disgrace. Never mind the lack of respect for the game itself, the physical retinal damage that this parent may have inflicted on some of those players with that type of laser is disgusting. I thought the Lynn hockey mom was the worst hockey parent I had heard of in a long time, this one beats her 10 times over. Hope you're proud of yourself whoever you are!

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : 4 towns plus a parent with a laser pointer. If this story is true, which it sounds like it is as the parent was removed from the game, Winthrop should be DQ'd. Absolute disgrace. Never mind the lack of respect for the game itself, the physical retinal damage that this parent may have inflicted on some of those players with that type of laser is disgusting. I thought the Lynn hockey mom was the worst hockey parent I had heard of in a long time, this one beats her 10 times over. Hope you're proud of yourself whoever you are!
Posted by Hockeymomsrule

At a minimum the MIAA should move the Saturday game to a nuetral site or Braintree.

One thing on the waivers for middle school students. The spirit of the rule was that by allowing these waivers it would "save" a team from having to dissolve. We all agree some teams have abused these waivers. The MIAA coaches association has 2 reps on the MIAA rules committee. One thing that has been proposed and is being kicked around is the following:

Any team that applies for and is granted a waiver would be excluded from post season play for that particular season. The thought is to allow teams' waivers if they are needed to "save the program" and to try and discouraged applying for waivers to get better quality middle school players up to varsity.

I don't know if I agree with the propsed rule of excluding teams from post season if their school applied for a waiver. I know if my daughter wanted to play hockey for the high school, which had a waiver, and was denied post season play...I would seriously look into prep schools....Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the waiver..to save the program. To exclude my daughter's chances of obtaining a possible state title and the experience of playing in a tournament because of the waiver is not right. I would think that players with talent would leave the school, thus draining the program of talent. Wouldn't that discourage younger girls from joining the youth programs if their high school can't even compete in the state tournament? Just a thought..and opinion.

This is the second time a parent from Wintrhop/Lynn/Saugus/Revere has been caught using a laser pointer to distract players. Two or three years ago the same thing happened v. Wilmington in a regular season game. Seems like a pattern of unsportsmanlike conduct from parents of players in the program continues.

This is the second time a parent from Wintrhop/Lynn/Saugus/Revere has been caught using a laser pointer to distract players. Two or three years ago the same thing happened v. Wilmington in a regular season game. Seems like a pattern of unsportsmanlike conduct from parents of players in the program continues.Posted by bwc1904

Seriously?? Surprised AD/MIAA did not step in and prohibit spectators. I have heard of this being done before.

Really....Really.... laser pointer's at sporting events. Just when you think you have seen/heard it all.Just by bringing it into the rink and using it this parent was premeditated in effecting the outcome of the game and it apparently worked. Shame, Shame, Shame. Replay the game at a neutral site.

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : 4 towns plus a parent with a laser pointer. If this story is true, which it sounds like it is as the parent was removed from the game, Winthrop should be DQ'd. Absolute disgrace. Never mind the lack of respect for the game itself, the physical retinal damage that this parent may have inflicted on some of those players with that type of laser is disgusting. I thought the Lynn hockey mom was the worst hockey parent I had heard of in a long time, this one beats her 10 times over. Hope you're proud of yourself whoever you are!Posted by Hockeymomsrule

This "infraction" falls under rule 48.1 under MIAA rule. Its considered "taunting", which includes any "actions or comments by coaches, players or spectators which intend to bait, anger, embarrass, ridicule, or demain others..." This rule states that the person "disqualified" (which in this case was a parent who was removed) must fall under the Rule 49.3, which is the disqualification rule. This means, that although the "win" stands, they forfeit the next game. It does also say that a tournament official can eject a specatator at their discretion or give a warning, but they still fall under the disqualification rule once that's done.

Now.. do I agree with that to happen, no way. Medway should actually get the win, however, as we all know, no athlete wants to win that way so they want to replay. You can't ask for just the 3rd period though. Replay the whole game if it decided a replay is necessary. However, I have a hard time accepting Winthrop/Lynn into the next round if they should beat them, even "fair and square". I too remember the incident a few years back, and I also remember playing games against Win/Lynn when they were breaking all kinds of MIAA rules by bringing signs, cow bells, and loud, abusive fans.

To the "good fans" at W/L, its unfortunate but you will now need to suffer for the actions of this person. Is it fair to the girls/families that have played this game with the utmost respect to it, no, but it is what it is. He ruined your season, it will always have the asterict.

IMHO, give Medway the win, or remove W/L from further play, but don't give them another shot at this game, considering, from what I heard, they were losing 1-0 with under a minute to go. Clearly the Medway goalie was having trouble seeing at that point.

Thanks to FOX news for pushing this story. Not too often they do this for girls hockey, it will be the media pressure that will finally force the MIAA to make the right decision, and that will include talking with the parents, teams, and officials involved.. good for FOX

This "infraction" falls under rule 48.1 under MIAA rule. Its considered "taunting", which includes any "actions or comments by coaches, players or spectators which intend to bait, anger, embarrass, ridicule, or demain others..." This rule states that the person "disqualified" (which in this case was a parent who was removed) must fall under the Rule 49.3, which is the disqualification rule. This means, that although the "win" stands, they forfeit the next game. It does also say that a tournament official can eject a specatator at their discretion or give a warning, but they still fall under the disqualification rule once that's done. Now.. do I agree with that to happen, no way. Medway should actually get the win, however, as we all know, no athlete wants to win that way so they want to replay. You can't ask for just the 3rd period though. Replay the whole game if it decided a replay is necessary. However, I have a hard time accepting Winthrop/Lynn into the next round if they should beat them, even "fair and square". I too remember the incident a few years back, and I also remember playing games against Win/Lynn when they were breaking all kinds of MIAA rules by bringing signs, cow bells, and loud, abusive fans. To the "good fans" at W/L, its unfortunate but you will now need to suffer for the actions of this person. Is it fair to the girls/families that have played this game with the utmost respect to it, no, but it is what it is. He ruined your season, it will always have the asterict. IMHO, give Medway the win, or remove W/L from further play, but don't give them another shot at this game, considering, from what I heard, they were losing 1-0 with under a minute to go. Clearly the Medway goalie was having trouble seeing at that point. Thanks to FOX news for pushing this story. Not too often they do this for girls hockey, it will be the media pressure that will finally force the MIAA to make the right decision, and that will include talking with the parents, teams, and officials involved.. good for FOXPosted by yohoapirateslifeforme

Thanks for leading me in the direction of the FOX story. I had not heard the details. This is a tragedy all the way around. Shame on the Winthrop/Lynn AD, Principal, Superintendant, Coaches, Boosters and anyone else who allowed this parent to continue coming to games if they had done this before. Ultimately you win as a team and you lose as a team. Sad for the girls on the team but IMHO W/L should forfeit this "win".

Ouch this is a sticky one, since it could also be used for setting precedents in related cases. When does cheering for your team tilt over the edge to taunting the other team. I think we can all agree that in the most serious cases it is clear when that line is crossed, but there is a world of grey in between. Witness the whole Super Bowl fiasco when the runner raised his arm on the way to scoring. There was NO concensus about that one, but the on field call stood, which affected the final outcome.

In this case, the only fault I can obviously see is that as soon as the pointer was observed that the person using it needed to either have the item confiscated (for later return after the game) or be immediately ejected, and not to wait until it became a bigger issue like it seems to become.

Punishing the team for an action of an adult in the stands is touchy. What if the team he is allegedly supporting (due to where he lives) is not the team he wants to win. grudge against the coach for example. Just read the papers these days about how many coaches are leaving jobs where the only real issue that can be discerned is clashes with some parents. So now the MIAA would need to question motive as well as action. Someone on the team or the coaching staff pulls a stunt like that, and boom, out of there. Someone in the stands? Disgruntled student who got cut from the team? Wanting to "punish" those who made it instead of them. Slippery slope.

So while it seems a little wishy washy at some levels, I have to agree with the MIAA on this point, there is no game action to be done.

As to a folllow on, banishing the offender from games is kinda a hollow thing, unless there is some real punishment that follows. There is NO WAY ticket takers at most playoff games have a clue as to who the adults are entering a venue. Unless it is made known to all the parents of the team who is not allowed to attend and somehow enforced, then that "punishment" is a sham. It might work at the home rink, but at away games or neutral sites? No way. Whose job is it to enforce this banishment? The Cops? yeah right.

Jason from Friday the 13th could buy a ticket and attend most games. THe hockey mask would blend right in...

One thing on the waivers for middle school students. The spirit of the rule was that by allowing these waivers it would "save" a team from having to dissolve. We all agree some teams have abused these waivers. The MIAA coaches association has 2 reps on the MIAA rules committee. One thing that has been proposed and is being kicked around is the following: Any team that applies for and is granted a waiver would be excluded from post season play for that particular season. The thought is to allow teams' waivers if they are needed to "save the program" and to try and discouraged applying for waivers to get better quality middle school players up to varsity.Posted by goodtime19

Ouch this is a sticky one, since it could also be used for setting precedents in related cases. When does cheering for your team tilt over the edge to taunting the other team. I think we can all agree that in the most serious cases it is clear when that line is crossed, but there is a world of grey in between. Witness the whole Super Bowl fiasco when the runner raised his arm on the way to scoring. There was NO concensus about that one, but the on field call stood, which affected the final outcome. In this case, the only fault I can obviously see is that as soon as the pointer was observed that the person using it needed to either have the item confiscated (for later return after the game) or be immediately ejected, and not to wait until it became a bigger issue like it seems to become. Punishing the team for an action of an adult in the stands is touchy. What if the team he is allegedly supporting (due to where he lives) is not the team he wants to win. grudge against the coach for example. Just read the papers these days about how many coaches are leaving jobs where the only real issue that can be discerned is clashes with some parents. So now the MIAA would need to question motive as well as action. Someone on the team or the coaching staff pulls a stunt like that, and boom, out of there. Someone in the stands? Disgruntled student who got cut from the team? Wanting to "punish" those who made it instead of them. Slippery slope. So while it seems a little wishy washy at some levels, I have to agree with the MIAA on this point, there is no game action to be done. Posted by PetefromNorthofBoston

Great Point.. touchy yes, I see what you mean. Then the only real fair thing to do, if you side with both situations is to fully replay the game. At minimum the MIAA can make that call.

However, I feel its cut and dry, and as was the case with the football call, the rule states if you taunt and are thrown out, you forfeit the next game (player, coach, or spectator, - its written that way). In the football case, they enforced the rule, didn't ignore it. Since this is the tournament, if they can't forfeit the game played already, they forfeit their spot in the tournament for the next game. Or maybe at minimum suffer a loss or 2 to start the season 2012-13. But don't just brush it off, and figure it goes away, as does everything with the MIAA. We as parents, players and coach's need to make them more accountable to the rules they create, enforcement is hardly there and when it is, its usually rediculous.

The bottom line, whether he did it as revenge, or just to give W/L an advantage doesn't really play in here. He did it, they saw it, they removed him from the rink. Its an infraction that needs to be dealt with. At least have a hearing on it.

And not for nothing, as I stated before, the parents, teachers, coach's, AD's cause many things to happen to a team that stinks for the girls who did nothing. Its part of life, in a team sport. Remember when the teacher would take away recess for the entire class because one kid got in trouble? Why would this be different. It is horrible, I think there are many girls in WL that don't deserve it, but I also think the girls on Watertown/Melrose didn't deserve to have 2 hard fought wins taken away cause someone didn't check a report card (allegedly). Its a rule, rules are to be followed according to the MIAA and since they don't bend, they need to inforce what is written, not just say "he was removed and there's nothing we can do".

Did anyone hear the W/L guy say its the "goalie's fault cause she should have had her head up not down".. I mean really, what is wrong with that? Why not just say, hey, we'll replay it, we all want it. The W/L superintendant says "i think its aweful and I'm looking into criminal charges, but the win should stand". Why keep insulting the situation?

Just replay the game and everyone's happy right..... do the right thing here, that's all Medway is asking, and thats a fair request.

The point I was making about the Super Bowl call, was once it was called taunting, then everything that followed was in order. The point of contention for most observers of the play was, did the action that occured on the field count as taunting. Similar actions by numerous players in other games did not get flagged and that was shown in a number of film clips of those games. (I understand that in this case the player in question had some prior history so perhaps the officials were giving no slack to that particular player.)

However, how many times have you seen a basketball player lift his or her arms in celebration after sinking a long shot in a game. ALL THE TIME!. How is that any different in spirit. Its not. If those players point at their opponent and "taunt" them, then sure. Foul!.

Or after a goal, hockey players raising their sticks to celebrate. (I know the MIAA does not necessarily have the NCAA football rules in place for all sports, but the idea is the same.)

I understand this a pretty severe case, but where does the line get drawn? Does a single voice in the crowd yelling out "Hey Goalie you suck!" constitute a violation of 48.1 as listed above?? What about 3 people yelling in unison??? What if a spectator tosses a water bottle onto the ice? During a 2 on 1 breakaway that the goalie stops? Does the goalie get penalized and have to stop it again with a replay? (The rinks I frequent tend to have glass to ceiling netting along the specator sides making that hard to do...) So punishing the team or players for actions of spectators is a slippery slope.

Having the full weight of the MIAA being willing to support charges of disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace or some such legal charge in cases like this might be a better course of action. Just like at Fenway, run on the field and you face some legal charges. Many times you can make them go away with fine, but sometimes those charges are more severe. A record might dissuade some over enthusiastic supporters from crossing that line. I know most games like this have to have a detail cop on hand, so they should already be in place to handle the arrest or citation.

I don't know if I agree with the propsed rule of excluding teams from post season if their school applied for a waiver. I know if my daughter wanted to play hockey for the high school, which had a waiver, and was denied post season play...I would seriously look into prep schools....Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the waiver..to save the program. To exclude my daughter's chances of obtaining a possible state title and the experience of playing in a tournament because of the waiver is not right. I would think that players with talent would leave the school, thus draining the program of talent. Wouldn't that discourage younger girls from joining the youth programs if their high school can't even compete in the state tournament? Just a thought..and opinion.Posted by fuzzygirl

I agree that it is a tough price to pay for applying for a waiver. The MIAA intended for the waiver to be a last resort. The waivers are not intended for teams who need a real goalie, or have 7th and 8th grade players who are better than players on their current team.

Waivers are not to be used year after year. If you continue to apply for waivers year after year than there is a bigger issue. You don't have enough girls to field a team year after year. The MIAA created the co-op teams to assist with this issue. You can create a co-op and when numbers rebound you can disband and go back to one town team. East Bridgewater and Abington did this in boys hockey, they played as co-op last 4 years and this year both fielded teams.

The youth level should not be impacted. If you are in middle school and playing U14 in your town then there are other girls your age group so when you get to high school there shouldn't be an issue. And if you are in middle school now and your high school team can't make the tourney this season it shouldn't discourage the middle school girl who is 2 or 3 years away from high school.

The talent level of girls hockey is on the rise. There are more U teams and select hockey clubs for girls now. That being said we are in a transition period for probably the next 2 years. There are still players out there who just started playing hockey in high school and that don't participate in any summer programs. As more girls start to play at a younger age the competition will even out teams will be on the same footing. Right now, it seems like schools see the talent just a few years away in middle school and want it right then and there.

Lastly, of all the D1 and D2 players in the MIAA I would guess 2 or 3 percent could play prep level hockey. There are 79 teams, lets for sake of argument say there are an average of 16 players on each team. That is 1264 players, 2 percent of that is 25 players. I will say that prep schools promise A LOT of things to parents and players but once they get your money and you are there all bets are off.

I don't think this will be solved over night but the rubber stamping of waivers has to be addressed. Since it is not policed right now the proposed rule is one way to reign things in. I know there are teams out there that really need waivers, I just can't think of any off the top of my head. Maybe someone can mention a few so we can see how they did with their waiver.

Ouch this is a sticky one, since it could also be used for setting precedents in related cases. When does cheering for your team tilt over the edge to taunting the other team. I think we can all agree that in the most serious cases it is clear when that line is crossed, but there is a world of grey in between. Witness the whole Super Bowl fiasco when the runner raised his arm on the way to scoring. There was NO concensus about that one, but the on field call stood, which affected the final outcome. In this case, the only fault I can obviously see is that as soon as the pointer was observed that the person using it needed to either have the item confiscated (for later return after the game) or be immediately ejected, and not to wait until it became a bigger issue like it seems to become. Punishing the team for an action of an adult in the stands is touchy. What if the team he is allegedly supporting (due to where he lives) is not the team he wants to win. grudge against the coach for example. Just read the papers these days about how many coaches are leaving jobs where the only real issue that can be discerned is clashes with some parents. So now the MIAA would need to question motive as well as action. Someone on the team or the coaching staff pulls a stunt like that, and boom, out of there. Someone in the stands? Disgruntled student who got cut from the team? Wanting to "punish" those who made it instead of them. Slippery slope. So while it seems a little wishy washy at some levels, I have to agree with the MIAA on this point, there is no game action to be done. Posted by PetefromNorthofBoston

It would be touchy int the situation you describe but this is not. They know who did it - a parent. Seems cut and dried.

In Response to Re: EMASS Girls Hockey 2011-2012 : It would be touchy int the situation you describe but this is not. They know who did it - a parent. Seems cut and dried.
Posted by BSHockeyParent

I still think the MIAA should have at least found a neutral site for the Winthrop vs. Braintree game tomorrow. At least some degree of acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the MIAA would have occurred then.